Pixel Droppings

Easy Mode: Linux Mint or Puppy Linux

Middle of the Road: Ubuntu

Lean Mean Expert Mode: Arch Linux

When an “ugh, Windows” or “corporate-controlled software's such a pain!” post crosses my dash, I’ve often reblogged with links to the Wikipedia articles on a few Linux distributions or other appropriate FOSS. I don’t usually include Puppy Linux. This time the issue is specifically about controlling your own computer. And yes, Puppy Linux gives you control, more directly and at-your-fingertips than Mint or most other distributions.

Reblogging here because of something Michael_Moceri said in a Pillowfort post: “What really grabs my attention is that they've got a ton of graphical widgets that let you dig down into customization. Want to swap out to a gaming optimized kernel? Want to remove every last bit of unwanted software that might otherwise slow you down a small fraction of a second? Want more control over which repositories you're using? Want to install a bunch of gaming stuff? There are graphical widgets for all of that.

My initial reblog on this was pretty much the standard recommendations, only Puppy Linux was specifically about controlling your own computer. And I rec’d Arch Linux in that as the least user-friendly of the bunch. But CachyOS (an Arch-based Linux distribution), although prioritizing gaming and optimizations intended to improve performance on newer hardware, provides easy GUI-based control and customization similar to Linux Lite (rec’d in my prev). At the time of this reblog it’s #1 on DistroWatch (notable because that’s usually Linux Mint’s spot).

are you gonna be weird about feeding tubes? are you gonna ask invasive questions about catheters and ostomy bags? can you cope with seeing someone give themselves an injection? could you walk up to someone with a tracheostomy and talk to them? how about someone with a central line?

Trevor Noah interviewing Judith “Badass” Heumann

Judy Heumann believed in the inherent value of each disabled individual and would never back down on what she thought was right. Her friends and fellow activists remember her as a strong leader.

Judy Heumann

December 18, 1947 - March 4, 2023

Because Rainbow Fish can be retold like this: 

A fish has a part of their body - their physical, incarnate body, what they were born with - that makes them very happy and that they are very proud of. They also have an unfortunate habit of thinking that they are better than other fish. That part isn’t good, and causes the other fish to be unhappy with them and avoid them. 

The fish is now very sad. The only person who likes the fish anymore tells him to go to the octopus, the animal framed as the adult in the story. 

The octopus tells the rainbow fish that they have been a snotty jerk and that the only way to make people like them again is to take off their scales and give them away. That in order to have any friends and make up for their behaviour, they have to rip off pieces of their own body and self and give them away to other people to make the other people happy and make up for their transgressions. 

And the rainbow fish is upset. And then another fish comes and asks them for a scale. And the rainbow fish takes off a piece of themself, their body, the thing they were born into, and gives it away. And now that fish likes him, and is materially benefitted by this piece of another fish’s actual body that has been given to it. 

And then the other fish come, and the rainbow fish rips off more parts of its body - all of the parts that used to make it happy and that it was proud of - and gives them to the other fish, because it’s not fair that the rainbow fish’s body was so much nicer. And when the rainbow fish has ripped all but one scale off, tearing out of themself all but one of the things that they possessed in their self that made them happy, then all the fish are friends with them! And everything is great! And everyone has a fair share. 

Of the rainbow fish’s, and I do quite mean to keep hammering this point, own body.

What the book says is: 

1. if you are born with something nice - like, for instance, an attractive body or a clever mind or a talent or whatever - and it makes you happy and proud, you are a horrible person and deserve to be shunned. Absolutely no line is ever drawn between Rainbow Fish’s self, their actual own body, and their behaviour. In reality, it’s their behaviour that’s the problem: they are mean and aloof to the other fish. This could be the case whether or not their body was all covered with magnificent scales. However, the book absolutely conflates the two: their behaviour is framed as a natural and unavoidable outcome of being happy about and proud of their special, beautiful body. So don’t you dare ever be happy or proud of anything you have or can do that everyone else doesn’t have exactly the same amount as, because if you do, you are horrible and by definition snotty, stuck up and mean. 

2. That in order to make up for the transgression of having something about your actual self that makes you happy and proud (which, remember, has automatically made you selfish and snobby, because that’s what happens), you must rip pieces of what makes you happy out of yourself and give them to other people for the asking, and you must never ever EVER have more of that part of - again, I hate to belabour except I don’t - your self than other people have, and that makes you a good person that people like and who deserves friends. 

To summarize, then: to be a good person you must never have something about yourself that makes you happy and proud and if you happen to be born with that something you must absolutely find a way to give it away to other people and remove it from yourself, right up to tearing off pieces of your body, in order to be a good person who deserves friends. 

This, I am absolutely sure, is not what the author intended: the author definitely meant it to be a story about sharing versus not sharing. But the author then used, as their allegory/metaphor, the fish’s own actual body. Their self. It was not about sharing shiny rocks that the rainbow fish had gathered up for himself. It wasn’t even about the fish teaching other fish how to do something, or where to find something. 

The metaphor/allegory used is the fish’s literal. body. And so the message is: other people have rights to you. Other people have the right to demand you, yourself, your body, pieces of you, in a way that makes absolutely sure that you have no more of anything about your body and self that is considered “good” than they do. 

And that might just suck a little bit except, hah, so: Gifted adult, here. Identified as a Gifted child. 

This is what Gifted children are told, constantly. All the fucking time. 

(Okay, I overstate. I am sure - at least I fucking HOPE - that particularly by this time there are Gifted children coming to adulthood who did not run into this pathology over and over and over and over again. I haven’t met any of them, though, and I have met a lot of Gifted adults who were identified as Gifted as children.) 

Instead of being told what’s actually a problem with our behaviour (that we’re being mean, or controlling, or putting other people down), or - heavens forfend - the other children being told that us being better at something doesn’t actually mean moral superiority and is totally okay and not something we should be attacked for, we are told: they’re jealous of you. That’s the problem. 

Instead of being taught any way to be happy about our accomplishments and talents that does not also stop the talents and accomplishments of other children - whatever those are! - from being celebrated, we are left with two choices: to be pleased with what we can do, or what we are, or to never, ever make anyone feel bad by being able to do things they can’t. And the first option also comes with two options: either you really ARE superior to them because you have skills, abilities and talents they don’t (or are prettier), or you are a HORRIBLE stuck up monster for feeling that way. 

(It is not uncommon for Gifted kids to chose either side, which means it’s not uncommon for them to choose “okay fine I really AM better than you”; this can often be summarized as “intent on sticking their noses in the air because everyone else is intent on rubbing them in the dirt”; on the other hand I have met a lot of Gifted women, particularly*, who cannot actually contemplate the idea of being Gifted because to do so is to immediately imply that they are somehow of more moral or human worth than someone else and this means they are HORRIBLE HORRIBLE SELFISH PEOPLE, and so will find literally any reason at all that their accomplishments are not accomplishments or that they don’t deserve anything for them.) 

Instead of being given any kind of autonomy or ownership of ourselves, we are loaded down by other people’s expectations: we are told that because we can accomplish more we must, and that daring not to do what other people want to the extent that they want with what we are capable of we are selfish, slackers, lazy, whatever. We are taught that we owe other people - our parents, our friends, even The World - excellence, the very best we can possibly do, and trust me when I say people are ALWAYS insisting We Could Do Better. And we should, or else we will be disappointing them, or letting them down, because (because we are Gifted) the only reason we could possibly be failing is not trying hard enough. 

We are, in fact, told over and over and over and over again, to rip off pieces of ourselves to give to other people to make them happy, because those pieces are valuable, but forbidden from enjoying the value of those pieces - pieces of our selves - for our own sake because that would be selfish and arrogant. And we owe this, because we were born a particular way. 

Because, metaphorically, we were born with rainbow scales, so now we have to rip off those rainbow scales in the name of Sharing, and otherwise we are selfish and horrible and deserve to be alone.** 

That is why I fucking hate The Rainbow Fish. 

Because whatever the author INTENDED, the metaphor they chose, the allegory they picked, means that THAT is the story they actually told. (And is the story that child after child after child after child I have encountered actually takes from it.) I don’t hate the author; I’m not even mad at them. But I do hate the book with a fiery passion, and it is among the books I will literally rip apart rather than allow in my house when I have kids, because I’m not going to give it to anyone ELSE’s kid either. 

*but, I would like to note, not UNIQUELY: this is something I encounter in Gifted men as well. 

**I can’t remember who it was, in relation to this, put forward the thought: if people actually talked about the access and use of children’s bodies the way we talk about access to and use of Gifted children’s minds and talents†, the abusiveness would be absolutely clear? But they’re right. 

Requiring gifted children to assist their peers, at the expense of downtime, working on a passion project, or in some cases even their own regular school work

Pressure to find a way to solve Very Big Problems - it is not uncommon for gifted kids to be told straight out that they are supposed to grow up to cure cancer or save the rainforests

Pressure to go into STEM fields because that’s where the Useful Work That Smart People Do is

Pressure to choose and commit to a career path very early (like third grade), dabbling or shifting interests treated as unethically wasting potential

Denial of acceleration (i.e. a developmentally appropriate education) because it wouldn’t be fair to other students (who are already receiving a developmentally appropriate education)

Denial of accommodation for gifted children with learning disabilities (i.e. a developmentally appropriate education) because LDs are seen as balancing out what would otherwise be an unfair advantage

Expectation of adultlike emotional regulation, expectation to help peers and even adults regulate themselves

Pressure towards single-sport for athletically gifted student athletes, despite increased injury risk and actually being detrimental to performance, on a similar theme to the fourth point

Treatment of gifted education as at odds with other types of special education, proposals for gifted education programs (even full grade acceleration, which costs negative money) shot down on the basis that we should be doing more for DD/ID kids instead of helping kids who are already inclined to excel academically

Presumption that gifted kids are deficient in SEL and moral reasoning, constant scrutiny and tests to verify this presumption

Not telling gifted kids they’re gifted, so that they will not become lazy or stuck up, still doing all the above but never explaining why

Expecting gifted children to provide emotional labor to adults by listening to their objections and soothing their anxieties about giftedness and gifted education (I heard the story about that kid who graduated Harvard at 15 or whatever and then killed himself at least two dozen times as a child, none of them voluntarily)

Treating giftedness as something that, because it cannot directly be given away, requires gifted children to give away more of other things: time, labor, treats, personal belongings

Strict denial of praise or validation - the gifted child already has more than they deserve, they don’t deserve to feel safe, successful, or appreciated on top of it, that would be unfair, and in any case they’re in constant danger of becoming conceited, which must be prevented at all costs

I will add: I’ve used “Gifted” here because it is the understood term, still; because I still don’t have another that I wouldn’t have to spend way too much time explaining FIRST before I could talk about anything.

Which then leads to things like the child starting to struggle instead of excelling as usual, due to their ignored disability and never having been taught how to handle it or treated in a way that helps support them, and being told over and over that they’re just not trying hard enough and they’re not “living up to their potential”, until they burn out entirely and then hear nothing about how they “wasted their potential” after that.

and alaska. and hawai'i.

so he LOVES being fancy with audio, and loves when the dialogue is muffled and low because it's more "authentic" and refuses to use ADR

(and also with how technology advances, actors can have mics in their clothes and can mumble into them instead of projecting their voices)

THEN everyone copied Nolan because CINEMA

and here we are

(i found the video i remember explaining this topic)